Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:42, 14 June 2017

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓ ↓ Skip to discussions ↓ ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/07.

Please note:

If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
Have you read our FAQ?
For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.
For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump.
To ask for image improvement, see:
- Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs.
- Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps.
- Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations.
To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop.
For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation.
For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests.

Search archives:

Start a new discussion

#	💭 Title	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	Pre-implementation discussion on cross-wiki upload restriction	11	5	Whym	2024-07-29 12:46
2	Die Gartenlaube: Adding an artist to an image within Wikidata	12	3	Broichmore	2024-07-31 11:21
3	Image Annotation	11	4	Doc James	2024-07-29 01:41
4	600_TB_of_recent_media_files">>600 TB of recent media files	25	8	MGeog2022	2024-08-04 15:07
5	Self-talken photo	13	7	Jeff G.	2024-08-04 10:43
6	Category:Videos by language	6	3	RZuo	2024-07-31 10:59
7	Question about Flickr2Commons	6	4	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )	2024-07-30 15:47
8	Some country missed on File:Flag map of the world.svg	7	4	Enhancing999	2024-07-29 12:41
9	Chromista, Hacrobia and other non-monophyletic groupings	2	2	Ruslik0	2024-07-29 20:06
10	Are 4K videos discouraged now?	19	12	Abzeronow	2024-08-03 21:02
11	Library of Congress #	3	3	Geohakkeri	2024-07-31 08:18
12	Quality Images nomination experiment in August	1	1	Mike Peel	2024-07-30 20:50
13	Nudity category	1	1	RZuo	2024-07-31 12:02
14	Meet with the Structured Content team at Wikimania!	1	1	Sannita (WMF)	2024-08-01 14:38
15	Commons Gazette 2024-08	1	1	RZuo	2024-08-01 22:12
16	2024 Summer Olympics logo.svg	3	3	Abzeronow	2024-08-03 21:04
17	Request to delete two files I uploaded because of license	4	2	Ashune	2024-08-03 20:34
18	Should we convert all TIFFs to JPEGs?	24	17	RZuo	2024-08-04 12:42
19	Semi-protection on the Village Pump?	9	5	MGeog2022	2024-08-04 14:27
20	Acceptability of file names containing emoji	7	5	DMacks	2024-08-04 15:16
21	Further dissemination of Wikimedia Commons Atlas of the World needed	5	2	MGeog2022	2024-08-04 14:59
22	Santo Domingo de Guzmán	1	1	RZuo	2024-08-04 15:17

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

People of Ngadisan (Java, Indonesia) are filling their cans at the village pump. The old well is defunct and replaced by a water tap. [add]

Centralized discussion

See also: Village pump/Proposals ■ Archive
Commons:Requests for comment/Hosting of free fonts in Commons (18 July 2024) How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023)
Template: View ■ Discuss ■ Edit ■ Watch

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

Oldies

Grandfathering GFDL-1.2

Commons only accepts free files. In the past this was {{GFDL}} and later on CC licenses like {{Cc-by-3.0}}, {{Cc-by-4.0}} and {{Cc-zero}}. We currently still accept {{GFDL-1.2}}. This license seems to be used by some users as a loophole to make re-use of files very difficult if not impossible. Legally it might be "free", but it definitely goes against the spirit of freely usable we have on this project. Wouldn't it be better to grandfather this license? In other words: No longer accept this license for new uploads. Multichill (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While it is not desirable that people free images while attempting to obstruct its reuse, I don't think we should place additional licensing restrictions by rejecting some free licenses. Moreover, that would be problematic when importing from other projects using GFDL images (eg. some localpedias) if we have to reject them. Platonides (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multichill i agree, but this mess is the consensus. they would rather be free to obfuscate rather than simplify re-use. see also Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed the facts here are stark evidence of how morally broken commons is. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this RFC from 2013 is important reading. This proposal today asks for a similar outcome as proposed in that RFC and I think we would need to have another RFC in order to make sure sufficient opinions are captured when we interpret what the consensus is. I.e. need to go wider than the village pump. As well as taking stock of what has changed since then. There were comments there from the Free Software Foundation on the use of the GPL which would be worth consdiering. seb26 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most GFDL images that were on Commons on November 1, 2008 had CC-BY-SA added as an additional license in June 2009. It's presumably images with only a GFDL license which are the problem (having GFDL as one of several licenses is harmless)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no - it is hybrid GFDL-1.2 + CC-BY-NC as well. it is not harmless that commons has files that are "free on commons only", i.e. terms make it practically impossible to reuse. (not that anyone abides by the terms, they just stay away) Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "one of several free licenses". If GFDL is supplemental to an image that is already appropriately licensed for Commons without GFDL, then GFDL is harmless... AnonMoos (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GFDL-1.2 for images is bad. But it still would be acceptable for books, and for extracts of GFDL works. So we can't refuse GFDL files entirely. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Maybe we can create subset of licenses labeled as "depreciated" and prohibit new uploads by copyright holders of works using only those licenses. "Depreciated" licenses would start as {{GFDL-1.2}} but can be extended to {{GFDL}}, {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}, {{Cc-by-1.0}}, {{Cc-sa-1.0}}, {{Cc-pd}}, {{Attribution}}, etc. We would allow new uploads with those licenses if they were transfers from outside repositories or other wikimedia projects (if upload to wikimedia project happen before "depreciation" date). But we will not allow new uploads of works where the uploader is the copyright holder. We will also need to create some mechanism of detecting non-compliant files (SQL?). --Jarekt (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jarekt. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We will certainly need a formal RFC for that, but Support. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 12:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose You can't just ban a license by name. COM:Licensing would need to be changed so that licenses containing the undesirable features of GFDL were no longer accepted (it was also discussed last year). Commons doesn't have a fixed set of licenses. GFDL files are presumably still useful for some purposes, e.g., in Wikipedia and other online uses, so I don't see the benefit of banning them from Commons. I'm not sure how Jarekt's proposal would work, since somebody would still have the option of hosting their GFDL files somewhere else and suggesting they be copied to Commons. --ghouston (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

flickr does not take it - did you have another obscure file share place that does? you could always treat it like PD Mark from flickr. "free, but too much trouble". Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to host files on the Internet, there are a lot of options, including running your own website or blog. You could even do it with Flickr: set them to all-rights-reserved and release them under GFDL in the description, or send permission to Commons using OTRS. It would be silly to place restrictions on Commons users that don't apply to files obtained from elsewhere. --ghouston (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

but it is hard to host files under a license that even the FSF has moved on from. only an ideologue would do it, or a photographer who wants to collect a fee. and it is silly to delete files with a PD - see also [1] maybe you could have a word. it is also perverse to allow a PD that no one can reuse, but disallow a PD that everyone uses, but commons deletes, because it does not want to do the cleanup. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing occurs to me, that if the files are banned from Commons, they will probably become another class of files that will be hosted on Wikipedias instead. --ghouston (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as GFDL-1.2 is a horrible license (1.3 at least allows double-licensing under a CC license under certain circumstances). --Malyacko (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL-1.3 by itself is also bad. Per relicensing criteria, it allows double-licensing under a CC license only for files "uploaded to Commons or to some other Wikimedia project before August 1, 2009". So for new uploads it is as bad as GFDL-1.2. --Jarekt (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why isn't it enough to deprecate it and discourage its further use? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Koavf We could do it but I doubt anybody will notice. Nothing will change. Also we can work on mechanism to detect new uploads with deprecated licenses. --Jarekt (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'd support in principle, if there was a plausible way to address Yann's concern specifically about extracts from GFDL works. Say, for example, a GFDL-1.2 work is scanned with the ultimate goal of ending up at wikisource. That work includes images... what happens to them? Storkk (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Storkk, I was proposing to restrict the upload to {{Own}} works uploaded by the copyright holders, so there would be not restrictions to your example file. --Jarekt (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: If it were restricted to {{Own}}, I'd probably support (though there would seem to be some rather large loopholes there)... but Multichill's proposal does not mention this, unless I am misreading it. Your support does, but seems to be materially different to the proposal under consideration. I'd lean towards supporting your suggestion (with reservations because of the loopholes). Storkk (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm also not sure we should accept new GFDL-1.2 files from outside repositories either: if the license isn't "free enough" for stand-alone images, then we shouldn't consider it free enough for stand-alone images just because they come from an external repository... my main stumbling block is really that GFDL-1.2 can be free enough for mostly-text media. Sorry if I sound a touch confused, I'm currently fighting a cold, and so may be a bit muddled. Storkk (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you could allow the GDFL for texts and not allow for images, as the "appropriate licenses RfC suggested, (not that anyone is using GDFL in texts anymore). Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the GFDL 1.2 isn't a free license for media files as it is not practically possible to follow the term of the license in regard to them. The GFDL 1.2 is ancient at this point and there is no reason why we need to continue allowing new uploads with this license. If that limits some derivative works, so be it. Commons is supposed to be a repository for reusable files, not files that are encumbered by copyright law. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how important this issue is, but I think we can make a list of forbidden/discouraged licenses (for single-licensing of original photos): for instance we wouldn't like OFL to be used for anything other than fonts (it doesn't work very well) and Creative Commons discourages the usage of CC-BY-SA for code. There doesn't need to be a general policy on how to make such a list: there are many ways a free license can be unsuitable for works other than those it was thought for.
To make such a decision more effective, we could also write in the template, Commons:Copyright tags, relevant pieces of Commons:Upload etc. that any photo first published on Wikimedia Commons under GFDL is also dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA (3 or 4?). This is consistent with the practice we use for text (CC-BY-SA first, then GFDL; except for imports) and is generically allowed by m:Terms_of_use#7d. Nemo 21:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Jarekt. Braveheart (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose GFDL is still used for many older files. Multilicensing is allowed. So it would be impractical to disallow this behaviour/possibility, both for older and current uploads. Loophole or not, it could even be practical in instances with potentially sensitive but (for the WMF projects) important files.--Paracel63 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jarekt and Nemo. This practice is just not in the spirit of what we are trying to do here (my humble opinion). I can't see why we continue to condone it. I'm sure it will create a bit of a problem for some people, and i'm sure someone will try to find another loophole. But for all the idealism around complying with copyright law across multiple regions, FoP, sweat of the brow, personality and trademark rights... we are being awfully lax about this in my view much more crucial part of our ideals. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose GFDL is a free license. The enforced license change by the Foundation without the consent of the authors is the reason for the use of 1.2 only. Will next CC4 automatically become CC0 or GFDL 1.3 will PD? Without me! --Ralf Roleček 07:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF notified all of its users before implementing the license migration (not change). Since all Wikimedia sites were licensed (only) under the GFDL, unversioned, and that GFDL 1.3 allowed the dual licensing with CC BY-SA-3.0 for MMC sites (like wikis), and that there is a majority supporting dual licensing Wikimedia content with CC BY-SA-3.0, your argument is nonsense. ★Poyekhali 05:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm sure something carefully worded can be incorporated into policy that supports existing media and any exceptions required. But the previous RFC and some of the above comments will tell you that Commons is incapable of making a rational decision on this because everyone votes without either understanding what is being asked or because of some political mantra about "GFDL is a free licence" that means as much as "Brexit is Brexit". It is interesting to note that Ralf, who votes above me, uses CC BY-SA. So I have to wonder just who is using "GFDL 1.2 only" and do we care to permit them? -- Colin (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will strongly support this proposal only if dual licensing with a free CC license or FAL license is still allowed and that this will only apply for new own works. I made a similar proposal to this before, where I proposed to ban new own works licensed under GFDL-only or GFDL and nonfree license. I withdrew the proposal since somebody said that it should apply too to licenses like the GPL. However, doing some research, GFDL may be similar to the GPL, but the GFDL is actually problematic to comply with than the GPL. Even the FSF don't know how to comply with it (according to RationalWiki). So, I would say that GFDL is very unacceptable to use not only in Commons but for every other work, even the software manuals which is really the purpose of the GFDL. ★Poyekhali 04:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading up to 500 images at a time with Special:UploadWizard

For a while I was using a little hack for uploading up to 500 images at a time with Special:UploadWizard. If someone have a need to use that feature I would like to learn if it works for others. What you do is:

go to this stage using Chrome brouwser
open java script console with Ctrl + Shift + J
paste "mw.UploadWizard.config.maxUploads = 500;"
now if you open an album or a photostream with up to 500 images you can upload them all at once

This greatly simplify upload from flickr from albums with 100s of good images, but you still need to add descriptions and categories to them all and possibly clean up default names. What I am interested in is it works for other (maybe it works only for some subgroups of users) and does it work in other browsers. There is a talk at phabricator:T135085 to increase number of allowed uploads. --Jarekt (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That certainly is worth a try or two!

--Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jarekt! Just to let you know as a courtesy, I have made copies of both your comments to my user-page so that I can quickly look them up in the near future when I have a chance and the time to sit down at a computer and try working out what I need to do. I no-wikid your sigs so that you wouldn't get notices and it wouldn't look like you had posted them there, but so that I had a record of who said them and when. Thanks! Mabalu (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mabalu, I am not sure if the above hack will work for you, as I think someone though it will work for admins only. I also do not think you need it. Special:UploadWizard will display 500 images but with the current settings will only allow you to choose 50 images. Which sounds like what you need with the collection you are working with. --Jarekt (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jarekt! I don't see the option to upload from Flickr on Special:UploadWizard so I need to try and get that to show up for me. Not being very technologically inclined, it's a bit confusing but I'm sure I'll work it out.... Again, thanks for your help. Mabalu (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see at this stage? Also make sure you are logged in. --Jarekt (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Flickr files#Tools, only admins and image reviewers can import from Flickr via Upload Wizard. --Magnus (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about http://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/ ? - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus thanks for hint, I did not realized that there was still such restriction. I wonder why do we need it, while anybody can use other tools like http://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/, mentioned by Jmabel. --Jarekt (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can ask the permission to be broadened, if there is consensus. Nemo 21:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be great. --Jarekt (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt and Jmabel: The only reason this feature is restricted to admins and image reviewers is that the community asked for such restrictions when the feature was first developed. If there is community consensus to broaden access to the feature, I would be happy to broaden it. Kaldari (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, can be abused, especially if one is uploading images directly from Flickr, it will be auto licence reviewed which means if someone is flickrwashing and mass uploaded images from flickr which are not free, we (licence reviewers/sysops) won't know about it as it would skip the review stage thus why it should be at this stage limited to 2 groups. In the future when safety procedures are put in place which can stop mass uploads by new users or users with a record for uploading unfree images then maybe it can be released to all wikimedians.--Ste moc 03:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything upload tool can be abused, there is no way around it. Regular users using Flickr2Commons, Flinfo, F2ComButton or mass download to computer and mass upload without flickr option can do regular and mass uploads of flickrwashed files for years. It is easily done but I do not hear much about it, So it is not a major issue. I doubt that will change if we activate another way to do it. --Jarekt (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I proposed to expand the right to use UW to all users. See Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Allow_all_users_to_use_Upload_Wizard.27s_flickr_option. Let's continue discussion there. --Jarekt (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

Category:Tagged self

I placed {{Editprotected}} and a request on Template talk:Self#Category:Tagged_self three days ago. A small discussion ensued, in which Hedwig in Washington suggested posting here as a larger venue.

Category:Self-published work "contains 18,216,991 files which is 46.19% of all 39,440,424 files in Wikimedia Commons." That is a huge number of files. https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/?lang=commons&name=Self&namespace=10 shows that {{Self}} is transcluded by 16,958,669 files. I want to change the category used by {{Self}} from Category:Self-published work to Category:Tagged self to further diffuse Category:Self-published work. After the job queue finishes processing the change to those 16,958,669 files, that would leave ~1,258,322 files which are either direct members of Category:Self-published work or are members by some other method(s). I would then want to find that/those other method(s) and diffuse it/them too, so that we would have a much more limited set of direct members to analyze (and possibly replace the direct membership with a tag and cat for each type), because Category:Self-published work should not have files as direct members for internationalization reasons (as they appear on file description pages, the templates are internationalized, but the category names are not). 1,234,257 files tagged {{PD-self}} and 272,369 files tagged {{PD-user}} or {{PD-user-w}} have already been diffused into Category:PD-self and Category:PD-user respectively, but we already have a Category:Self with a different purpose (self as subject, as opposed to self as author, with some overlap for selfies). Note, these numbers are constantly changing with every upload and deletion, generally trending upwards (except the percentage). — Jeff G. ツ 01:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better approach would be to use CatScan2, PetScan, or Quarry tools to find some examples of files in the category which do not use {{Self}}. For example you can fork quarry:query/19341 to find such files. Than you can play with the files without creating new categories like Category:Tagged_self. --Jarekt (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, wikidata tools are better than categories + bots. you could create a work list (or maintenance category) from wikidata with a sparql. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting surnames

I noticed there is a great job in organizing people in Category:Surnames (and for "great" I mean both "massive" and "very good"). There is only one problem: double surnames. Spanish compound surnames are actually two different surnames (a paternal one and a maternal one), but this cannot be applied to every surname consisting of more than two words. When I saw this moving, I realized that all the people like "Vito De Filippo", "Peppino De Filippo" etc. where in category "Filippo (surname)" instead of "De Filippo (surname)", and JuTa explained that "[it's] like every other double or tripple sur- or given name. If it contains multiple parts, it will be a sub-cat of each single name.". Well, this is very arguable, at least in Italian: now "De Filippo (surname)" is a subcategory of "De (surname)" and "Filippo (surname)", which is completely nonsense, because it is not a combination of two different surnames, but it is one single surname called "De Filippo". Would you really split "Alessandro Del Piero" in "Del (surname)" and "Piero (surname)" or "Robert De Niro" in "De (surname)" and "Niro (surname)"? (or "Giulio D'Anna" in "D' (surname)"??) It is essentially wrong. In the case of given names it makes sense ("Maria Chiara" is actually a combination of two stand-alone names, "Maria" and "Chiara"), but this cannot be applied to surnames. I would like to know the opinion of the community about this. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 07:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly consider names that happen to be written in two parts ("De Filippo", "von Trotha", etc.) as single names, distinct from the double surnames in the Iberian languages or hyphenated surnames sometimes found in English. - Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from very specific cases (which are such only in apparence) there’s no such thing as «double surnames in the Iberian languages». Most Catalan- and Spanish-speaking people have two surnames (the former always connected with "i", the latter seldom connected with "y", to make a long story short) and most Portuguese-speaking people have two or three surnames (seldom more, seldom one), but there’s nothing to be gained in presenting these as compound surnames (as in Rimski-Korsakov or Mountbatten-Windsor): Just accept that Human names may include any of several parts (given name, surname, patronymic, etc) and that any of those parts can be made of any number of words. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In contemporary Spanish usage "y" between the apellido and the segundo apellido is very uncommon. In any case, clearly those are double surnames, unlike De Filippo or von Trotha. - Jmabel ! talk 23:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s why I used the word "seldom" and caveated that this is «to make a long story short». -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes, notwithstanding rare exceptions like Federico Garcia Lorca choosing to be known as Lorca, the primero apellido is clearly the main surname, but it still makes sense if we are categorizing by surnames to use both, because people looking someone up may have no idea of the structure of these names. If we are going to put a "Smithers-Jones" under both "Smithers" and "Jones", we should certainly put a "Ramos Gonzales" under both "Ramos" and "Gonzales". - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, Portuguese-language names (incl. Brazil) have typically the main surname at the end, as the last surname, not as the first one as in Spanish and Catalan-language names. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Spanish people (Catalan ones included, for now) with two surnames have not "double surnames" (in general terms, of course one of these two could be a double one) but "two" different surnames. The first one and the second one. Of course, that surname part could be splitted into different units.
That means it would not make sense classifying "Pérez González"-people under a hypothetic Category:Pérez González (surname), because Pérez González is not a surname. Classifying them under Category:Pérez (surname) and Category:González (surname) simultaneously is ok enough, though. Strakhov (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Strakhov: You and I are agreeing, but stating it differently. By "double surnames" I mean precisely that they have two surnames, not a surname with a space in it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then, yes, we agree. :) Strakhov (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that we all agree: Categories should aggregate individual surnames, including those made from more than one word (e.g.: van der Waals, de la Hoz, Castelo Branco, or even Parker-Bowles), and regardless of how they are used in anyone’s particular full name — either standalone or with other surnames, at the beggining or at the end of the full name, etc. The only problem seems to be those other editors who are not discussing this here and are creating and using categories that either split the components of multi-word surnames and given names, and/or lump together as one several surnames as stringed in someone’s (or some lineage’s) full name. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: perfect resume, IMHO. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 10:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous comments (Tuválkin's, especially, is enlightening); as for the italian surnames, Superchilum has already said all, considering "De" and "Filippo" as two separate surnames is absurd (I will only add the "De Filippo" is essentially a variant of "Filippi": the "De" in "De Filippo" and the final "i" in "Filippi" are two different ways to express a common patronymic origin - that is, "related to Filippo"; I suppose the same is true for typical german or dutch surnames, like von Ribbentrop, van der Pol or den Adel). I've read the discussion in JuTa's talk and it's quite appalling. This is not something you can agree or disagree upon (you can't disagree with facts), and you can't make a valid de facto standard with based on a wrong assumption. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 10:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the vast majority thinks that Category:De Filippo (surname) should not be splitted and belong directly to Category:surnames, I have to admin that I am wrong and "they" are correct. So I will move it back to its origin state. --Ju Ta 18:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JuTa: Thank you. Of course it is not just a problem of "De Filippo", it applies also to double surnames (i.e. two surnames) in Spanish, to be treated as different surnames and not like a unique surname, and in general to all the surnames of the languages with rules we don't know. For example, I don't really know Vietnamese to say that Category:Trinh Van-Can (surname) is a combination of really different surnames (Trinh, Van and Can). As I can see from en:Vietnamese name, "Van" can be a middle name or a family name, and in this case there is a "-" in the middle. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 06:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, correct me where I was wrong. A comprehensibly edit-summary would be nice. With time I will learn to indicate those people myself and do them correctly. --Ju Ta 07:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish surnames should be put in the categories of the two single surnames. E.g. Category:José María Rivera Corral should be put in "Rivera" and in "Corral", but not in "Rivera Corral", which doesn't exist. Italian surnames... well, that is more difficult... but generally speaking, every time there is a capitalized "Del/Di/De/D'/Da", that is a unique surname with what comes next (e.g. "Del Piero", "Di Chiara", "D'Anna", "De Niro"). The same applies for "Lo/La" (e.g. Category:Davide La Rosa or Category:Luigi Lo Cascio). There are not other common types of double surnames in Italian, and the remaining should be considered one by one. I think that, when we are in doubt, better don't do it :-D and ask the village pump. Particularly when dealing with Asian people, where it is not so easy to distinguish among given name, middle name, surname, double surnames etc. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 13:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current backlog (oldest unanswered mail or ticket) in permissions-commons queue is 3 days.

I created {{OTRS backlog}} showing current backlog in permissions-commons queue and hope to update it weekly. In my view OTRS queue related to Commons is falling more and more behind despite heroic efforts by a few OTRS agents trying to stay afloat ( not me lately as I was preoccupied with other issues). We do have 190 Commons OTRS volunteers, which sounds like enough to handle the load, but somehow the system is collapsing. The tickets we handle take extra long time as it usually requires admin rights to undelete already deleted pages and figure out where were the images used, before delinker removed them. --Jarekt (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, >70 days now. That's very, very bad. I mean, that's not just one of those Commons-internal backlogs nobody really cares about. This is about external contributors getting rightfully pissed because their stuff gets deleted due to formalities and they have to wait months for it to be sorted out. That's highly unprofessional. Is there anything we can do, apart from recruiting more OTRS members? --El Grafo (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC) To avoid confusion: With "highly unprofessional" I of course mean Commons as a whole as seen from an external contributor – not the individual members of the OTRS team. --El Grafo (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The volume of the emails stays the same, so we "just" need more people processing them. Either new OTRS members or existing OTRS members. Once we caught up than processing new tickets should get easier as we do not have to undelete them. We might also have the "out of site, out of mind" issue so I hope my new {{OTRS backlog}} might keep more people aware of the issue. --Jarekt (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts about bring this up on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and to the whole whole community (which also includes Wikibooks, Wikiversity , Wikidata) ? They may have admins that are conversant with our image policy but are not currently active on WC and thus don't know about this backlog. From what I can gather, 73 days is not a long time when one considers how few people work on OTRS. It may only require a few more admins who are experienced (and volunteering on a temporary basis) to whittle this back down quickly. In business, I found the 90% of the issues were quick to solve but it was the remaining 10% that were taking up 90% of my time. Just a few more eyes (from our sister projects) and their input may melt away this current overload. P.g.champion (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.g.champion, I think that is a great idea. See here. --Jarekt (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you need to create an OTRS team to work the backlog. but that would require collaboration. not interested. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked files from US government become public domain ?

“Report: Russia Launched Cyberattack On Voting Vendor Ahead Of Election”, in National Public Radio^[2], June 5, 2017

See above article reporting on the document.

I see we have prior examples at File:Xkeyscore-worldmap.jpg, Category:XKeyscore.

Would the leaked document in question in this case be public domain as made by US government ?

Sagecandor (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked files from US government are public domain, they also might be still classified. That causes a problem because a US government employees or contractors after visiting a Wikipedia page showing classified document would get "classified" materials on their "unclassified" computers. In such a case they are legally obligated to report that to their security which is obligated to reformat their computers. The rules related to a spill of classified information do not always make sense and do not make distinction between new and old spills. --Jarekt (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: Okay that's helpful, thank you. We can see File:Xkeyscore-worldmap.jpg, is in use on multiple different language Wikipedias. So how does this all apply here? Can we upload the document mentioned above? Sagecandor (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason not to upload. My concern is mostly for a new class of files that some might not want to open at work, which might be harder to avoid than porn. --Jarekt (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the helpful advice ! Sagecandor (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see also Category:Pentagon papers which remained classified for decades. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms images

I am posting here for guidance in good faith. I am not forum shopping. I am not complaining. This is not a user problem. I say those things because I am in a bit of a dispute with the image creator about one of his images.

This post is about other images he created. I need some views about whether or not they are similar enough (in terms of colour, shape, etc.) to the sources to be used. I also wonder about the sources.

I really do not know where else to post about this. Point me in another direction if you know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't indicate where or what the dispute is, so none of us know what is in dispute or where to comment, but if the user is creating his/her own graphics and correctly following a blazon, that should usually be unproblematic. - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jmabel. I did not want to link any dispute because this is not about that. If you want to dig into contribs or talk pages about that, that's fine with me.

This post is only about these coats of arms his/her created: The coats of arms

Again, please compare the uploaded ones to the sources, and please consider the quality of the sources.

Many thanks,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, these are being used in many articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link you give leads to everything this user ever uploaded. Looking at the two most recent, the source is "own work", which I see no reason to doubt. References are given, but I don't read Chinese (do you? Your user page only indicates English), so if those references include a blazon, I can't read it. If the relevant part of the references are just the images, it's hard to determine whether these uploaded images faithfully follow the blazon, because just from one artist's representation of a coat of arms there is no way to know how specific the blazon may be (e.g. if it just says "bishop's mitre, goules" that leaves the artist a lot of latitude). - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Anna may not have any constitutional amendments to protect her speech. — Jeff G. ツ 05:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anna_Frodesiak -- Coat of arms images which follow the traditional rules of European heraldry are a little different from some other things, since the ultimate authority is the textual description in the "Blazon". Any person is free to go back to the original textual blazon and produce a new artistic rendering of the coat of arms based on the blazon, and then he or she own the copyright to his or her own particular rendering, and can upload it to Commons, releasing it under a suitable license. Of course, other people also own the copyrights to their own particular artistic renderings. Please see the wording on template {{Coa blazon}}... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, AnonMoos. Actually, the copyright status isn't really a concern to me. If others thing it is a problem. they can act. I am concerned about articles containing emblems that may be fiction because the source is a blog. Sixty-two such images have now been tagged accordingly. However, the emblems remain in articles. I just hope the tagging stops the spread. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An example

Let me give you an example of what I mean:

This is a blog with the source. Is a blog a good source? Not really. The emblem could be made up for all we know. This is the emblem made from that source image. Notice the differences? The bishops hat becomes different. The "L" thing to its right becomes a swirly thing. Then, that creation gets added to four articles: de:Liu Xinhong en:Joseph Liu Xinhong no:Joseph Liu Xinhong zh:刘新红

Now, imagine that content added to articles was text. The source would be rejected as an unreliable blog. The rewriting of the text would be considered completely misleading. The text would be removed.

Well, here we have a dozen or more emblems, from blogs etc., interpreted inaccurately (in some cases the source is black and white, and the interpretation is full colour....no idea how those colours were selected), and then those emblems are added to articles.

Doesn't this strike you as a problem?

Best,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anna Frodesiak,

Wikimedia Commons doesn't interfere with the content in such cases, except eventually to help improving the rendering in our labs. If a file is not used, it may be deleted as out of scope, but it is the decision of each local Wikipedia to use the file or not. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, thank you for that very informative but worrisome bit of info. A bit of a hole in the system, I think. Okay, thanks all. I will figure out how to handle this from here on in. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anna Frodesiak, you can tag such CoAs with a dispute tag, see here: COM:COA #How to tag images of emblems. -- User: Perhelion 14:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Perhelion. That is actually really good to know, and a really essential group of templates. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I could do by adding the Template:Lacking insignia source to 62 of the 100 images. Those were sourced with blogs, forums, etc. Thank you all for your patience. It has been a learning experience. I am very sorry to the uploader, who was acting in very good faith. I just tried to do what I thought was necessary and right. For me, this case is now closed. Best wishes to all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lar rendering, and can upload

June 07

This user is from the United States

Template:User United States got broken at some point, apparently after some internal machinery started spitting out "United States of America" instead of just "United States". I partially fixed it by creating the redirect Template:User is from/layout/United States of America, but there is still a redlink to Category:Users in the United States of America (which, AFAIK, cannot be simply redirected to Category:Users in the United States). I'm done trying to fix this. Someone else can take a crack at it. - dcljr (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't a redirect work? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah… I've known for so long that "category redirects don't work", that I forgot that the redirecting part of it works fine, it just doesn't result in pages being (re)categorized in the target category. Since that's not much of an issue in this case, I guess that's OK. (I've already created the redirect.) However, any users who call {{User is from|US}} directly will end up in the redirected category, which no one will see anymore (unless they work to suppress the redirecting). These users will have to be prompted to change it to {{User United States}} to get them into the target category (or it will have to be done for them). There is one user for which this is the case, as I type this. I have already notified them, but they may not see the message since they haven't edited here (or any WM project) in over two years. - dcljr (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 08

TL;DR for cycle 2 of the strategy discussions

Hey Commons people, there are only a few days left to participate on the strategy discussions. A few editors in IRC mentioned an TL;DR might help, and User:SGrabarczuk (WMF) was kind enough to build this. I'm leaving this here to also help the Commons community participate in a more familiar setting. I'll move all discussions to the strategy page once cycle 2 ends for archival purposes, please feel free to participate in either setting. Chico Venancio (WMF) (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle 2 TL;DR: Please read the themes and questions below, and answer as many questions as you like. At the beginning of your comment, mark which theme and question you're referring to (e.g. A4, or C2). -- You can also answer anonymously by an off-wiki survey.

Cycle 1 (generate)	Sensemaking	Cycle 2 (debate)	Sensemaking	Cycle 3 (prioritize)	Finalize draft	Phase 2
March 14–April 18	April 18–May 5	May 11–June 12	June 12–June 21	June 28–July 28	July 29–Aug 8	Aug 2017–2018

Proposed drafts of priorities ('Themes') (A-E)

A: Healthy, inclusive communities

The Wikimedia volunteer culture should be fun, rewarding, and inclusive for both existing contributors and newcomers. We should welcome new volunteers and mentor them to ensure that they have positive experience and continue to participate in the projects. People from every background should feel part of a network of groups and organizations with deep relationships. As a result, our movement will grow.

#Community health#Community engagement & support#Diversity & inclusion#Gender diversity#Internal communication#User engagement#New users#Experienced users#Readers

B: The augmented age (Advancing with technology)

The Wikimedia movement should use technological innovations to help volunteers be more creative and productive. We should use machine learning and design to make knowledge easy to access and easy to use. To greatly increase the quality and quantity of content in more languages, volunteers should, for example, have access to better machine translations. We should present and organize knowledge in ways that improve the way people learn and contribute — beyond the browser, the app, and the encyclopedia.

#Innovation#Automation#Adapting to technological context#Expanding to other medias#Quality content#Accessibility of content

C: A truly global movement

We should be a truly global movement. In particular, we should turn our attention toward regions we have not yet served well enough: Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. We should work with communities of readers, contributors, and partners in these parts of the world. We should make space for new forms of contributions that reflect these regions (references, citations, and more). We should build awareness of the power of free knowledge and overcome barriers to access. We should build products adapted to the needs of these new members of our movement.

#Emerging communities#Accessibility in emerging communities#Availability across languages#Outreach & awareness#Sustainability & growth

D: The most respected source of knowledge

We will work toward ever more accurate and verifiable content. By 2030, Wikimedia projects will be seen as the most high-quality, neutral, and relevant source of knowledge. We will increase the depth of knowledge available and maintain our standards for verifiable and neutral content. We will invite experts to join us. We will help people understand how our processes make us reliable. We will show the most relevant information to people when and where they need it.

#Quality content#Neutrality#Reliability & credibility#Knowledge#Free#Open source

E: Engaging the knowledge ecosystem (Participating in the knowledge network)

We should build relationships with a wide variety of organizations dedicated to the ideals of free knowledge. Wikimedia communities should work with allies that they didn’t know they had. Our content and technology should become a central part of formal and informal education around the world. We should partner with leading institutions in education, arts, entertainment, civil society, government, science, and technology. Together, we should invite a new generation of people who learn, create, and care for a growing library of free knowledge for all.

#Education#Institutions#Educators#Existing programs

Questions (1-5)

What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?
How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?
Focus requires tradeoffs. If we increase our effort in this area in the next 15 years, is there anything we’re doing today that we would need to stop doing?
What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?
Who else will be working in this area and how might we partner with them?

Acceptable to remove a category from an archived deletion request?

Commons:Deletion requests/File:مهرزاد خواجه‌امیری.jpg is categorized into Category:People. I'm sure this is a mistake, but there's some bold red text insisting that the page shouldn't be edited. Would it be okay for me to uncategorize the page? Thanks, GKFX^talk 12:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Sure. I would say that this is not a mistake, it is at least a test edit, possibly vandalism. Anyway, I have removed the category. --jdx ^Re: 12:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 09

Uploads of Boing-boing

All uploads of Boing-boing is under File renaming criterion #2. I have'nt time for requesting all of him files to rename. Is it another way for resolving this? ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 03:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Great: User:Boing-boing also appears to be a bot without a bot flag and without containing "bot" in its name, in violation of bot policy. — Jeff G. ツ 05:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user was edited last time in 2011. I think this is not a reason for blocking. But I don't care how he uploads many files with incorrect name. I'm interested in correct naming of this files. What we can do? ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 06:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the filenames are inappropriate, use {{Rename}} to suggest a better name & someone with the relevant privileges will follow up. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wanna do it for all of this files. ← Alex Great ^talk_rus? 06:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Great: Then just add {{Rename}} to as many as you care to or create a bot request. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is also the move button. to rename files. Commons:File renaming if you have file mover permission. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animated PNG

I just wanted to give you guys/gals a heads up that Chrome (as of version 59) now supports animated PNG files. Not sure if this information is useful to you all, but thought I'd send this information your way. Offnfopt^(talk) 06:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean APNG... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news, since you don't need to use an extension which will add APNG support. I hope all major browsers support APNG now, so that we could start converting all animated GIFs to APNGs... ★Poyekhali 02:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Converting from other formats would be several steps down the road, and there's no real need to rush into it. Adding file support so that animated images have animated thumbnails would be the first step, I assume... AnonMoos (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Android app update - v2.4.2

Hi all,

We're excited to announce that we've rolled out several new features and bug fixes for the Commons Android app over the past few months. Some of the major ones include:

A map of nearby places that need pictures (in addition to the existing list). Selecting a nearby place allows users to see the associated Wikidata item, get directions to the place, or view the associated Wikipedia article
A new and improved UI, including a light and dark theme, a navigation drawer, and a logout option
Fixed memory issues that were preventing users with older phones from accessing the app
Licenses now include CC-BY 4.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0, and licenses can be selected individually when uploading a picture
The total number of pictures that have been uploaded from an account are now shown, and the image details pane now displays the upload date and image coordinates

Thank you for your support and encouragement though all this time! Feedback, bug reports, and suggestions are always welcome on our GitHub page. :)

Misaochan (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

Content pages

What the heck is going on with the count of "content pages" (which I thought were only "gallery" pages in the main namespace)? It has increased by over 75,000 (a whopping 58% increase) in the last 3 days with nowhere near that level of new main-namespace pages shown on Special:NewPages over the same period. Did someone recently change which namespaces count as "content" on this wiki? - dcljr (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: can't be new links added to existing pages in the main namespace, either, since there haven't even been that many total RecentChanges in NS0. (To clarify: the last 500 such edits as I post this extend back to midday on June 8th [UTC], but there was definitely an increase of more than 33,000 additional "content pages" in that time period.) I suppose a new link could have been added to a widely-used template that previously didn't have any (internal) links on it… Would that cause this kind of steady increase in "article count"? Hmm… I notice that (again, as I type this) there are 136190 items in the "jobs" queue. Could that be circumstantial evidence that this has indeed happened? - dcljr (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

150 old postcards

I recently had to act fast. In a secondhand bookshop I got the opportunity to select lots of old postcards from the heritage of a postcard collector. The seller give me only limited time before he sold the collection on to professionals. (They buy these collections and then sell the individual postcards on the internet) After two hours work I selected 150 interesting postcards wich I intent to upload to the Commons. However this means I had pay out 300 euros (around 2 euro per postcard for high quality and special postcards) More than the usual 50 eurocent in the postcard boxes with enormous amount of junk. Then I spend about an hour to select 3 or 4 postcards. Is it posible to get some compensation for the outlay? I have selected postcards from all around the world (the deceased was wel travelled). I will need assistence to classify the Japanese ones.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk unsorted price maybe 50 Euro-cents but if you have 150 interesting postcards in your possession then you may well have 150 postcards worth 2 Euros or more each – which is what you paid for them. To the right collector... some maybe worth more. Take it that this may be your first purchase of PP's. Get to know the market and sell them on. There is a big difference between a ordinary picture postcard of (say) Amsterdam Harbour and a rare ones that commands a few Euros more. If the Japanese ones are pre-war then all the better. Tell you what. After you have uploaded them -so I can see them, I might offer to buy the whole lot for what you paid for them via Paypal. Will even pay the post & packing... how's that! P.g.champion (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To categorizes the Japanese postcards you may need some country specific knowledge. So you could ask here as a starting point on the talk page of: はがき P.g.champion (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you could submit for a rapid grant, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid or talk to your local chapter for some funding. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really a postcard collector in the sense that I only keep the postcards for reference and posible rescan. I am only interested in the historic images to upload to the Commons not the postcards themselves. If posible I photoshop them to remove stains, marks, discoulouring (I scan Black-White when the original image is Black and White) I have a box with scanned and uploaded postcards, one inbox with still to scan and upload and one small box wich has license limitations (most not yet 70 years old). If someone is really interested I can sell a specific scanned postcard, but I am not setting up a shop. I will be setting up a work category for the 150 postcards.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is OK Smiley.toerist. Think we know where your coming from. You spend some 300 euros on cards that you knew would be of value on WC. Yet, you have no interest in the post cards themselves - just the images. Reading between the lines, you know that these are traded on eBay but you are primarily a WP contributor and not a eBay trader. You don't need to be a experienced trader to get your money back. Suggestion: Upload images to WC and the scans of the back of these postcards. Wait a while, for other editors to review and add provenance. Then ask around, friends, family and neighbours to see if the a have a spotty teenager that knows e Bay inside out and would love something to sell on your behalf. Tell them that you bought this for x and anything more they can get for you, you will spit the profits 50/50. You selected a 150 postcards and the seller had a cash buyer before him. He may well have given you a discount for a bulk purchase for 'selected' post cards that are worth more. You may have found yourself in the right place at the right time and seized the opportunity to buy. Trust your instincts. P.g.champion (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

Transfer images from Google Photos

(Title fixed. — Speravir – 16:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hello.Why can not we transfer images from Google Phptos in full size using "url2commons"?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain what you mean by "Google Phptos", but if you mean the result of a Google image search, most of those images will be neither free-licensed nor public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jmabel: I mean "https://photos.google.com/" Which I can keep the pictures I shoot in it ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As always it depends on the licenses. If, and only if a photo is licensed under a license considered free it can be uploaded to Commons. More on Commons:Licensing and Commons:Copyright tags. — Speravir – 23:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel and Speravir: The problem is that the tool does not work with this website ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, that’s your intention. Then sorry. — Speravir – 16:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, the problem is, the tool can't login to your Google account. You will have to download the photos to your device and upload them using the regular uploading methods. --MB-one (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramio exit

We have many source links to Panoramio, but after 1 november 2017 we no longer have acces to it. Is there a way to verify the source after this date? I suppose WMF can have a backup of the files or are there other arrangements posible.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like for every other vanishing site there’s no way unless it was mirrored to an archive. — Speravir – 16:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

… and according to Panoramio - Help - Copy Photos to Google Maps all photos from Panoramio accounts linked with a Google account will be copied to Google Album Archive, but the linking has to be done actively by a Panoramio user, and the archive site seems to be open only for users with Google accounts, perhaps photos even will only be reachable for the owner. — Speravir – 23:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the photographs themselves, User:Panoramio upload bot has been working to upload all content on Panoramio that has been released by contributors under a CC license. With each upload, it adds a license review tag confirming the license, as well as all description, tags and location data. This seems to be the extent of the useful information in that source link. So yes the links will break eventually but it doesn't look like there would be any inportant information lost that wasn't already collected on the file page. The only other metadata I can think of would be Panoramio user ratings or comments, but I'm not familiar with how the site works. seb26 (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CropTool Disabled

Hello.CropTool becomes so slow that it does not open.Please fix it quickly.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems faster now, right? CropTool in itself is quite fast, but the shared Tool Labs environment can sometimes be sluggish, especially it seems like filesystem operations can be really slow sometimes. – Danmichaelo (δ) 12:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Danmichaelo: What to do when need to crop hundreds of files?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not yet uploaded to Commons, I would use imagemagick or jpegtran from the commandline. If they are, I'm not sure what's the best strategy. I'm not planning to add batch functionality to CropTool. – Danmichaelo (δ) 17:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Danmichaelo: I mean, I want to work on photos from Category:Photographs by Jose A. but the tool does not work almost.what should I do?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is working for me. It has been a bit slow recently, but today it is working well - and very fast, too! Best regards, -- Ajpvalente (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tools on sidebar missing

Resolved

Hi, On the left handside I have a tools section (Perform batch task, Report copyvio, No source, No perm, No license),
For some reason over the last few weeks these never show - Sometimes when I refresh they show however most times they don't, They seem to show when I click Edit on an image but thanks it,
I've included a picture so you get what I mean,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow the instructions on your talk page. --Didym (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didym - I hadn't even realised I received that message!, Suppose that's why it's a bad idea having everything archived after 1 day!, Anyway thanks for that much appreciated. –Davey2010^Talk 13:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going commando and upskirt photos are back again

Can we remove (again) all examples of Category:Upskirt photography and other Category:Exhibitionism or voyeurism from Category:Going commando? These images are examples of pornography, and of clearly prurient intent. The topic of not wearing underwear is not inherently erotic and is generally not intended to be erotic. Foregoing underwear is not strongly associated with people who wish to be nude in public, or who intend to flash their genitals. Some people choose to eroticize going commando (see Rule 34), but we don't stuff porn into a non-porn category because of that.

It's true that non-exhibitionist or non-voyeuristic examples of going commando are difficult to illustrate, since underwear is not normally visible and nobody knows if someone is wearing underwear or not. The fact that this is unknown to the public is the point. Non-exhibitionists with no erotic intent are comfortable "going commando" precisely because their expectation is that nobody will see or be able to tell if they have underwear. Exceptions exist, but we don't fill categories with exceptional or deviant examples; we want categories to primarily contain typical examples.

The argument that we have to use porn to illustrate going commando because there's no other easy way is like saying we have to categorize pictures of Earth's moon as moons of Pluto because pictures of Pluto's moons are hard to come by. Not everything has to have a picture of it: some concepts don't have a graphical representation. If I was to use pictures for this, I'd be more inclined to graph survey data on the prevalence of going without underwear over time rather than an upskirt photo. Category:Going commando should probably remain empty, and be deleted. There's nothing wrong with not having pictures of this, while presenting nothing but misleading, atypical pictures is spreading a false understanding of the topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually delete photos just because of "prurient intent" and no other reason. We do delete photos that are illegal, which violate ordinary expectations of privacy, or in some cases when there's a large accumulation of redundant low-quality images (such as dudes uploading drunken cell-phone snaps of their own penises)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say delete. I said remove Category:Going commando from the upskirt/exhibitionist/erotic images. They rightfully belong in Category:Upskirt and other porn/erotica categories, but Category:Going commando should be removed. This was discussed at the village pump some time ago, and they were correctly categorized then. Now they are back again, mis-categorized, and TwoWings (talk · contribs) and Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) are telling me the category must remain. It's obvious what the intent is, that seven erotic photos only were chosen, out of many options on Commons, and that the photos of men in Category:Upskirt were left out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "intent" that "erotic photos only are chosen" : it's just that we only HAVE upskirt pictures available to illustrate that topic (at least right now) ! I personally haven't reverted everything, considering that some of them were clearly not linked to the "going commando" topic. For instance, that file, previously categorized as "going commando", is not pertinent, since this woman is also topless, so it is another situation. Also, I haven't taken it back for that one since it's in a private place, so there's no reason to think it is linked to "going commando". Whereas this one and this one seem to be clearly linked to a "going commando" behaviour. The other ones are less clear, but since these persons are in public places (and not any clear erotic event) and only features bottomlessness, it may be a "going commando" behaviour. At least it can illustrate that behaviour. "Going commando" is about not wearing underwear in "normal" situations and public places. That's what is shown in the files that are categorized in that topic. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read "There's nothing wrong with not having pictures of this" above. Yes, but that's not logical not to make them obtainable (through categorization) when we have some ! If one thinks that the content may lead to a misunderstanding about what "going commando" is, we can just add a comment at the top, saying that the exhibitionnist aspect of "going commando" is not a compulsory aspect but that Commons can only provide such illustrations. When there's a problem, we find solutions, we don't remove or delete ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody suggested deleting any images. If I wanted to delete an image, I'd have nominated it for deletion, not removed one category. Saying "we don't remove or delete" makes no sense at all. If a category is incorrect, we remove the incorrect category, and keep the correct ones.

I don't know what you imagine 'going commando behavior' to be. The term only means not wearing underwear. It is not an invitation for voyeurism, and it's not exhibitionism. We have categories for that kind of thing, but that's not what this is. I don't see why it's a problem for upskirt erotica to be categorized as upskirt erotica. It appears you think voyeuristic photos that appear to be non-consensual (File:Goin Commando.jpg) are how you define 'going commando'? We're back to the idea that this exists as erotica for someone else. Nearly every source we have says that people forgo underwear because they say it's more comfortable for themselves, not as entertainment for others.

The repeated "this is all we have" argument is nonsense. Like if we have no pictures of goats, we should create a category called goats anyway, and put in pictures of sheep? Why? What is the urgent need?

It's not a solution to put sheep in a category called goats with a note at the top explaining that we've decided to call sheep goats as an illustration of what goats would look like if they were sheep. Why? You're not helping people find pictures of going commando by offering them upskirt photos instead. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR arguments are nonsense. You say : "going commando" should not be seen/illustrated, so we should not accept pictures where "going commando" is visible ! Going commando is about not wearing underwear in normal situations (ie "with no obvious erotic purpose"). When I see this file, this one and that one, it is about going commando. And we don't care if it's voyeurism of exhibitionism in those cases. Those three women are not wearing underwear in a normal situation and in a public place, and there's no obvious erotic intent from them. If I follow you, we should not categorize things in a category because it doesn't represent the diversity of a topic but just a particularity of it (a voyeurist/exhibitionist version of a behaviour). This doesn't make any sense ! If we HAVE pictures about a topic, we should make them obtainable, even if it doesn't represent the variety of the topic. What you want is contrary to the project : you don't want the users to have an easy access to what concerns a topic - just because what we have concerns a limited aspect of a topic ! This is not what the project is about ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Commons:Categories, notably where it says plainly: "Selectivity principle We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category." Sticking images in the wrong category does not give anyone "easy access". Want to make it easy? Put the images in the correct category. You have right in front of you an official policy that says do "not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category". Lame excuses about "the available files about that topic on Commons" don't cut it. We don't mis-categorize images because we lack the correct images. Read: Commons:Categories. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know Commons:Categories quite well (categorizing is my main activity on Commons and I'm far more experience than you are on Commons) and you misunderstand the extract you quote. What you don't accept or understand is that we can have a category about a subject even if it gives a choice that doesn't cover the diversity of that topic. For instance, you could have a category of a building with only interior views, and it would not be acceptable to say "let's remove all the files because we see only the interior so it gives a wrong understanding about the topic". What you don't accept is that at least 3 of the pictures in this category are clearly about "going commando" even if it may give the feeling that "going commando" is only about women in skirts/dresses who are somehow exhibitionist. I added an introduction to the category so that everyone can't be confused. Those 3 files ARE in the right categories (I could understand that we could question the other ones since there's obvious exhibitionism, but I do think it is also showing women who are going commando). There's something you don't understand : there can be several topics (therefore several categories) for the same file. For instance, this one concerns both "going commando" AND "upskirt" categories. As you said it yourself, "going commando" is not only about not wearing underwear under a skirt, therefore "going commando" is not a subcat of "upskirt", which means there are separate topics. Thus, when we see a picture of a woman who doesn't have underwear under a skirt, in a public place and with no obvious erotic purpose, there are logical reasons to say those women are going commando. So in that kind of case, the file goes in the two categories. QED. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis_Bratland -- I find it difficult to understand some of the details of your remarks, but the overall trend of your rhetoric would seem to be more relevant to a proposal for image deletion, or for selecting images to be placed on a gallery page, than to image categorization. AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I have specifically gone out of my way to say the opposite more than three times? It's forgivable to misunderstand once, but when I have said, repeatedly, "no, I am not saying that", and then you come back again only to contradict me, it's simply rude. For that last time, I'm not proposing deleting any files. Now will you drop it? All I want is to remove one category from these images. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

Phonetic translation from Persian?

As per this CFD, I found that the single photo in Category:Lord village was possibly taken in روستای موالی سفلی so I'm wondering if "Lord Village" is a literal translation. I was wondering if we might use a phonetic translation instead. Can anyone help? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

موالی is a form of the word of Arabic origin discussed in Wikipedia articles en:Mawla and (in suffixed form) en:Mawlana. Not sure what the Persian pronunciation is... AnonMoos (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:((( روستای موالی مراغه ))) - panoramio.jpg also includes the tag "Maragheh" so I assume it's a village in en:Maragheh County. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt

es:Wikipedia:Autorizaciones/El carbón en la vida cotidiana is cited by File:Carbonificacion.jpg and File:Eras formacion carbon.jpg as its authorization and this page includes a OTRS authorization. Should the OTRS authorization be linked directly in the file page? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 08:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Localities around Arad

I took some pictures along the tramline to Ghioroc. There is also a village Mândruloc. I suppose these are in Category:Villages in Arad County but I am not certain. Could someone classify these places? More pictures wil be uploaded.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are both in Arad County as you suspected. Ghioroc is a commune and Category:Ghioroc, Arad is classified as such. ro:Mândruloc, Arad is a village in Vladimirescu commune. I've created a category for the latter. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new category: Category:The Green Arrow.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marginalizing women

I believe issues parallel to this one have occurred before. Women photographers are steadily being moved into Category:Female photographers from the United States‎. There is no analogous male category, so the effect is that men are simply "photographers" but women are "female photographers."

I personally can't see any reason to divide photographers by gender. Unlike, say, singers or actors, they do not do significantly different things based on their gender. Also, if we break down by gender, what happens to any photographer who happens not to accept the gender binary? Again, I see no reason to highlight that.

I'm bringing this here rather than just COM:CFD because I'd really like to see us adopt a broad principle here, not alter one category. At the very least we should not create a "female" subcategory & remove all women from a main category that thereby becomes entirely male. - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was "women-novelistgate" in 2013, which received quite a bit of media coverage ([3], [4] etc.) and which led on to the "Qworty" scandal, but I'm not sure that it affected Commons very directly... AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is a replay of the women authors controversy. it will be a constant conflict as people tinker / "fix" categories. there might be some utility to the ontology arguing, except that the answer is wikidata. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/01/Category:Female writers from the United States. There's still no conclusion four years later. --ghouston (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. And I see I'm the one who raised essentially the same issue four years ago. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

well, duh!? and you were amply supported by the academics. i kinda agree, but have moved on. with all the wikidata functionality, why waste time on the dead end here. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghouston -- The whole "CfD" process on Commons is fairly fundamentally broken (as has been discussed here before), so it's not too surprising that a discussion has lasted over 4 years... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From User:Blackcat´s talk page, who is currently creating these categories, I understand that he will create the corresponding male categories after he has separated the female entries. I´d appreciate if he explained the general concept behind the male/female categorization - especially at which levels the split(s) should occur (Will there be Category:Female photographers from California as well?), how the loss of overview will be dealt with (Will there be a parallel Category:Photographers from the United States by name?) and why he didn´t move Category:Jennifer Beals to the female photographers but left her in the general photographers category (I can see some hints that she might be a woman). Generally, I´d prefer to mark gender in just one high level category such as Category:Women by name and to dissolve all gender separation in the deeper levels. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created "Female photographers by country" just because there was a pre-existing "Female photographers" category filled with anything (to asnwer to your question, Rudolph: no, but just because I have only moved to "Female photographers from the United States" all the names that were into "Female photographers". Sooner or later I would have placed Jennifer Beals in that new category, too. But, I guess, the point is not that). If we decide that there are professional categories that do not need to be split between "male" and "female" I am fine. But is a work that must be done and on which we must discuss. Otherwise we cannot complain if someone creates a "female" category that must somewhat be expanded and subcategorized.Thus any discussion that states what can be split between "male" and "female" and what doesn't have to is welcome. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply - you are right that this is not about Jennifer Beals, but I thought her picture would add something nice to the discussion :-) I fully understand your point about adding to a category for orders sake even if the existence of the category is hardly justifiable (I filled Category:LGBT politicians from Germany yesterday even though I had suggested it´s deletion by CfD). But if a part of the category system lacks support, is inconsistent and could be deleted without a true loss of information, we should probably delete it. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2017-24

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Some wikis have the larger and brighter OOjs UI edit page buttons. When you write an edit summary there you can now see how many bytes you have left before the summary is too long. [5]
When you search on Wikipedia you can now find pages on other Wikimedia projects that could be relevant. You see them next to the search results. [6]

Changes this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 June. It will be on all wikis from 15 June (calendar).

Meetings

You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 13 June at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

You will soon be able to get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account. You can test this on the test wiki. This will only work if they fail to log in to your account. [7]
Wikimedia wikis use OCG to create PDFs. The OCG code has a lot of problems and will stop working. It has to be replaced. An alternative is Electron. You can tell the developers what you need the PDF service to be able to do. Electron now works on all Wikimedia projects. [8]
Administrators can soon search for deleted page titles and find results that are similar to what they searched for. Today the search only finds pages that are exactly the same as what you search for. This is to make it easier to find pages when you don't know the exact title. Administrators on Arabic, Catalan, English, Persian, German, Italian, Polish, and Russian Wikipedia and on mediawiki.org can test this by adding &fuzzy=1 to the end of the web address when looking at Special:Undelete. [9][10]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Images with wrong geo coordinates

How to deal with images having obviously wrong geo coordinates? Simply fixing them? What, if the coordinates are in the Exif data? Though I think some general answer would be useful, I actually think of some images originating from Panoramio, and I do not see, where the Upload bot got the coordinates from, at least I do not find them in Exif. — Speravir – 23:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I usually correct them when I happen to notice them. If they are wrong in the EXIF data, I usually add a remark to that effect. - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Panoramio has the location stored in their equivalent of our file decription page. Afair, users could manually geocode images there just like they can here, so coordinates in EXIF would have been optional. BTW: Depending on how accurate your corrected coordinates are, you might want to consider adding {{Location estimated}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Grafo (talk • contribs) 10:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, @Jmabel and El Grafo: . For the template in my eyes it would have been better to provide the opportunity for adding the last part (“Verifying and refining these coordinates is strongly encouraged.”) optionally. There’s another issue with the line height. I will look at it. Update: Meanwhile fixed. 18:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC) — Speravir – 17:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

Interactive wikimedians map

Hi!

The Wikimedians map page now offers an interactive map of contributors to Commons . This is an extension of the one launched a few months ago on the French-speaking Wikipedia.

If you wish, you can easily add your own geographical location. Here's how (this is also shown on the page):

Copy & paste the code below into your common.js and reload the page Wikimedians map (F5 key)
mw.loader.load( 'https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-WhereWikimediansLive.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css', 'text/css' );

mw.loader.load( 'https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-WhereWikimediansLive.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );
A blue button now allows you to add your location (by clicking on the desired location on the map)

Note: This map can be shared between wikis, for example if you add yourself here and indicate to be French-speaking, you will also appear on frwiki's one
Note 2: Any improvement on the page that surrounds the map is welcome!

If you have any comments / questions / suggestions for improvement, don't hesitate! — 0x010C ^~talk~ 09:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons also has {{User location}}, which could be used for same purpose. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the page needs a health warning and some advice on how to select coordinates. In practice users so far seem to be adding obviously anonymized coordinates, which is sensible. I would not care much about people knowing which country I'm in, it sometimes comes up when discussing copyright law, however I would not want to publish exactly where my house or place of work is. Some newbies, especially children, might think this is a natural thing to do, without thinking through why they might want it removed in in the future. --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: I don't know if you've seen it, when the script is loaded there is already a message ("Warning, to protect your privacy, do not point your address too precisely.") that appear with some help. If you think it's not enough, don't hesitate to let me know or to edit the page directly

.

In fact, we have seen many people on frwiki setting their coordinates in the middle of a lake, in a museum, at a bus station,... near their real location, but to prevent any problem.

— 0x010C ^~talk~ 19:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 14

SHA1 hashes of media files

Is it possible to find out SHA1 checksum of a file without downloading it to my PC? It is not a big deal in case of photos, but it is in case of videos. --jdx ^Re: 06:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdx: you can use this function of the API to get the checksum of a file

— 0x010C ^~talk~ 07:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@0x010C: Thanks! --jdx ^Re: 18:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext/lang

Hi there,

When a non-logged user try to use Special:UploadWizard, they get MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext, no problem here, but if the user is trying to change the language using MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext/lang at the top, instead of changing the language, the user is redirected to the MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext/xx page.

Could someone please fix this? Some users thought they had to pay $1 to import files.

Thanks. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is because of an error in MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext/lang: it links to a language version of MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext instead of Special:UploadWizard. Ruslik (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are those language links still needed? Logged-in users as well as anons get versions of the Universal Language Selector allowing them to change the language of (almost) the entire interface, so having those seems redundant … FDMS 4 19:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FDMS4: That's what I thought too, maybe we should just get rid of MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext/lang. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Vanishing Request

I would once again like to request a "Courtesy Vanishing" on my account. --Don (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this one is sat on for a week, rather than actioned. Don has been here for seven years and uploaded about 1000 photos including featured pictures and quality images. This seems to be down to a argument with Charlesjsharp about who was "clueless" vs "an experienced sailor" in the discussion of one image of a boat. That does not seem to me a good reason to leave Commons, never mind go through a courtesy vanishing. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Don does not need to justify 'why' he wishes to vanish...merely that he wished to do so is sufficient (though it is regrettable). @WPPilot: Please contact me via email about exactly what personal information you wish to have disappear. I suggest you read, carefully, meta:Right to vanish to understand what is and is not possible. - Revent^talk 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 535: / Line 535: @@
 I would once again like to request a "Courtesy Vanishing" on my account. --[[User:WPPilot|Don]] ([[User talk:WPPilot|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 :I suggest this one is sat on for a week, rather than actioned. [[User:WPPilot|Don]] has been here for seven years and uploaded about 1000 photos including featured pictures and quality images. This seems to be down to a argument with [[User:Charlesjsharp|Charlesjsharp]] about who was "clueless" vs "an experienced sailor" in the discussion of one image of a boat. That does not seem to me a good reason to leave Commons, never mind go through a courtesy vanishing. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
+::{{reply|Colin}} Don does not need to justify 'why' he wishes to vanish...merely that he wished to do so is sufficient (though it is regrettable). {{ping|WPPilot}} Please contact me via email about exactly what personal information you wish to have disappear. I suggest you read, carefully, [[meta:Right to vanish]] to understand what is and is not possible. - [[User:Revent|<span style="color:#151B54;font-family:Garamond ">Revent</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Revent|<b style="font-family:Garamond ;color:#006400">talk</b>]]</sup> 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump: Difference between revisions